Greek Jesus - Tumblr Posts

The Jews therefore said to one another, 'Where does this man intend to go that we shall not find Him? He is not intending to go to the … Greeks, and teach the Greeks [instead], is He?'

--John 7:35

Eli of Kittim Discusses his View of the Greek Jesus

The Little Book of Revelation: The First Coming of Jesus at the End of Days

"The Little Book of Revelation: The First Coming of Jesus at the End of Days" uncovers a post-biblical conspiracy, perpetuated by the Church, that has essentially turned prophecy into history. While calling for a modern reformation, it raises some serious questions about the validity of the long-held belief in the historical Jesus. The book's unique argument is that the biblical story of Jesus is prophetic rather than historical, and it is well-supported biblically. It is based on a twenty-year study of the Bible. The author also uses the ancient works of Nostradamus and the Dead Sea Scrolls in an attempt to substantiate his claims. What is more, the book includes prophecies concerning the timing of the coming Messiah, the Antichrist, and the apocalyptic events. It takes a fresh new look at the story of Jesus through the lens of a modern biblical expert.

Excerpts from "Jesus Was Not a Jew" by Marilyn R. Allen

Christianity is NOT based upon Judaism even slightly, and never has been: this is merely another Jewish canard to be swallowed by the gullible. They are diametrically opposed in their principles. "THE MAN OF GALILEE" (whom they hounded, tortured, and finally achieved his crucifixion—would they have crucified their own?) taught and preached against their hidebound, cruel, enslaving Traditions. HE opposed them at every turn, and said that the "Sabbath was made for man: not man for the Sabbath," as the Jewish Pharisees had it. HE said they "compassed land and sea to make one convert, and having made him, he was twofold more the child of hell than they." HE told the Jews they were "whited sepulchres" which is the best description of their two-faced hypocrisy that I know of. His Disciples were Galileans ... of the Roman province of Galilee, (Galilee was not a Jewish province: Judea was).

Always where the Light is, there is the shadow also. In this connection, I would like to recommend to Evangelist Billy Graham, and other uninformed Christian ministers, that they read the booklet, The Prophet of Galilee (A Portrait of the Christ) by Mr. John Henry Monk, Editor of Grass Roots. In his brochure, The Prophet of Galilee, Mr. Monk calls attention to the fact that "All the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not," (St. Mark 7:3): but Jesus did not wash his hands oft, and "when it came to ceremonial washing, not at all." Mr. Monk then quotes the following sayings of Jesus to prove that HE was not of their faith and race. Jesus was speaking to Jews:

"Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness" (John 6:49) "Moses gave you circumcision" (John 7:22) "Is it not written in your law?" (John 10:14) "It is also written in your law" (John 8:17) "Written in their law" (John 13:25).

Why did His disciples say unto him, "Master, the Jews of late sought to stone thee?" (John 11:18). Why did He say to Pilate: "if my sovereignty were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered unto the JEWS?" (John 18:36). And there are other passages which, by their wording, prove that He did not consider Himself one of them.

Christ Was Not a Jew

There is an excellent little book, Christ Was Not a Jew, by Dr. Jacob Eton Connor, A.B., Ph. D. The work was subtitled, "An Epistle to the Gentiles." Quoting St. Matthew 21:11—And the multitude said, This is Jesus the prophet of Nazareth of Galilee. See also St. Matthew 4:15-18. Now to revert to Dr. Connor, "The TRUTH demanding recognition is that Christ, as the Son of Man, was a Galilean, and the Galileans were not Jews ... Josephus, the Jewish historian, describes the Galileans as a people wholly unlike the Jews in temperament and ideals—so different indeed that they could not have been of the same race. There was a taboo against inter-marriage between them as recorded in the Jewish Talmud. In a word, Christ as the Son of Man was a Galilean, and the Galileans were not Jews. This is the verdict of history. (Houston Stewart Chamberlain, Foundations of the Nineteenth Century, Vol. I. p. 206, 'There is, accordingly, as we see, not the slightest foundation for the supposition that Christ's parents were of Jewish descent.'). See also L. A. Waddell, L.L.D., C.B., E.E.I., The Makers of Civilization, 1929 .... "It is begging the question for anyone to assert that Christ was of the Jewish race. The contrast of His character with that of the Jewish background establishes a presumption that differentiates Him utterly, even if only the human aspect is considered ... and we learn from Josephus ... that the Galileans were a different kind of people from those of Judaea—a fact attested by the Jews themselves." To quote from Grass Roots, Oct., 1954, by Mr. John Henry Monk:

"To ignore race," (says C. G. Campbell, in his book on Race and Religion, from which Mr. Monk quotes) "is to disregard the most important influence upon the outcome of human history; for it largely, "Generally speaking, a country takes its name from a racial group which has long inhabited and dominated it .... The temptation is strong to discover in the name Galilee the word-root found in such names as Kelt, Gaul, Galicia, and Galatia, and thus to identify the Galileans as of an early Keltic origin." (Note by Mr. Monk: The proper spelling of the name is Kelt, not 'Celt,' for the Greek alphabet has no C. Thus the Gauls descended from the queen-mother, and the Kelts from her beloved son-king. The Gauls-Kelts were Greeks, for they recorded all their important papers in Greek ....)

Continuing to quote Mr. Campbell:

"... the Israelites (meaning Jews) always referred contemptuously to the Galileans as Gentiles ... the Galileans were uncircumcised ... their religion differed essentially from orthodox Judaism." "... the Romans made a distinction between the Galileans and the Israelites (Jews) by not placing Galilee under the same provincial government as Judea. The Romans placed it under Syria or gave it a government of its own." ... "Galilee presented a background for the rise of Christianity that was Hellenistic rather than Judaic .... The Israelites (Jews) habitually spoke of them as Gentiles, classing them with the goyim of the non-Israelitic (Jewish) world .... Nor is there any indication that orthodox Jews lived in Galilee in any numbers until after the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus in '70, when Judeans fled into Galilee ... that orthodox Judaism was the prevalent religion among the preponderantly Gentile population of Galilee, is patently absurd .... These Galatians ... were among the earliest of racial groups to embrace the Galilean religion of Jesus .... Although it has been widely assumed, as a matter of course, that Jesus was a Jew, the only support for this assumption is its long reiteration .... The Galileans were always called Gentiles, or aliens, by the Jews, and there is no actual evidence ... that Jesus was other than a Galilean..." (End of quotes from Race and Religion.)

And now to quote Dr. Hermann Guthe, Professor of Theology Emeritus, University of Leipzig, Germany, VII: 36 p. 678, Funk and Wagnall's New Standard Bible Dictionary, 3rd Edition, 1936:

"From II Chronicles 30:10 it may be inferred that about 100 B.C. a number of families felt themselves to be in relationship to Jerusalem. But their position among the heathen was not secure. Consequently, about 163 B.C., Simon the Maccabee was ordered to remove them with their property to Judea."—Note that Dr. Guthe says these families in Galilee "felt" themselves to be related to Judea.

And to quote from I Maccabees 5:14-24: "... Behold there came other messengers from Galilee with their clothes rent, who reported on this wise, and said, they of Ptolemais, and of Tyrus and Sidon, and all Galilee OF THE GENTILES are assembled together to consume us ... "Now unto Simon were given 5,000 men to go into Galilee! ..." Then went Simon into Galilee, where he fought many battles with the heathen (this is the consignation which Jews apply to Christians), so that the heathen were discomfited by him. And he pursued them unto the gate of Ptolemais; and there were slain of the heathen about 3,000 men, whose spoils he took. And those that were in Galilee ... with their wives and their children, and all that they had, took he away with him, and brought them into Judea with great joy."—And thus it was that the last person feeling himself to be related to the Judeans was expatriated from Galilee 165 years Before Christ. The book of I Maccabees is considered to be Holy Writ by the Jews, and all others generally recognize it to be historical. The writer's new Webster's Collegial Dictionary (1949), based on Webster's New International Dictionary, Second Edition, gives the following definition of Galilean: "A native or inhabitant of Galilee. Hence, a Christian;—after the epithet, 'The Galilean' applied to Jesus."

A Monstrous Perversion of Truth

Continuing with quotes from Dr. Connor's Christ Was Not a Jew: "Sure it is a monstrous perversion of the truth—this claim that Christ was a Jew—that is now being used by Jews ... to the incredible damage of Christ's mission to all the world. Says a recent authority, 'Whoever makes the assertion that Christ was a Jew is either ignorant or insincere: ignorant when he confuses race and religion: insincere when he knows the history of Galilee, and partly conceals, partly distorts the very entangled facts in favor of his religious prejudices, or it may be, to curry favor with the Jews. The probability that Christ was no Jew, that He had not a drop of genuinely Jewish blood in His veins, is so great that it is almost equivalent to a certainty.' (From W. D. Morrison's The Jews under Roman Rule, p. 85. 'Among no people of antiquity did race antipathy exercise so potent an influence as among the Jews of Judaea .... Among them, national inclusiveness had become one of the most vital elements of religion.') "Christ's mentality contrasts so vividly with a static-mindedness, a backward-looking type of mind, that this distinction alone divides Him from the Jewish race. It is utterly irrational to assume that He could have been evolved from a race with a hide-bound concept of morality, of ethics, of deity and humanity and their relations to each other ... His mentality was alive and unbounded .... "He went into the synagogues everywhere, as He had a right to do, because these were the 'town halls' of the public. It was thus that He went into the synagogue of His own home town, Nazareth, and when He had announced Himself in the chosen text, 'The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,' they were ready to murder Him .... "Everybody knew Him and His followers as Galileans ... even the servant who detected Peter's Galilean speech .... Christ said, 'I ever taught in the synagogue and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort' (thus naming the Jews objectively). And since HE did not include Himself among them, but throughout the whole farce of his trial He regarded Himself and was regarded by others as a Galilean, and not a Jew, what excuse has anyone for calling Him a Jew? Absolutely none ... Christ lived and died a Galilean Gentile or non-Jew, so far as He was the Son of Man. "It has been said by Ernest Renan (in his Life of Christ), that this makes Him all the more akin to the whole world—the Galileans being a mixed people but non-Jewish, and therefore He was not the scion of any one race or dynasty. He had the Galilean's independent spirit in His disposition, and not once did He show a servile attitude toward His persecutors ... no, not even to the High Priest .... Neither Christ nor any other Galilean, as Josephus describes them, would have apologized for having his face slapped .... How idle it is to think that Christianity, a world religion, could have sprung from the 'chosen people' bigotry! "But this compromise between Christianity and Judaism—for such it was [as the Disciples first taught it, after Christ's death]—could not endure, for the two were unrelated and irreconcilable. The one was broadly Gentile, the other strictly racial and intolerant.

Judaism would not have it so. Having brought about the public assassination of the Head of the new faith they had no idea of permitting His followers to preach His doctrines .... So the first Christian martyrs fell, and thus the blood persecutions began .... Finally, there was a general conference in Jerusalem of the apostles, elders and leaders of the Christians ... and the apostolic position with respect to the independence of Christianity from all Relationship with Judaism and established ... Jerusalem could never have conquered humanity: 'it is the north (Galilee) alone which has made Christianity.' (From Ernest Renan's Life of Christ p. 123) .... The Jews, on the other hand, were unrelenting in their efforts to totally exterminate the Christians." Dr. Connor then quoted excerpts from the three historians, Gibbon, Renan and Lanciani, based on the testimony of Tacitus, Seutonius and Pliny the younger, all of which have been verified, as to the Jewish incitement against the early Christians. Finally, Dr. Connor says: "It is sometimes thoughtlessly said that Christianity is an Oriental religion .... It ignores the fact that Christianity lost little time in escaping the confines of its origin, chiefly through the instrumentality of the Greeks, and thereafter attaining its full growth and its mission as a world religion only in the Occident. The sun rises in the East, but that does not make the sun Oriental: and like the sun, Christianity mounted toward the zenith of its power as it moved westward. No strictly Oriental religions have ever made much headway in the West, and owing to differences in the mentality it is safe to infer that they never will. The fact that Christianity has done so is consistent with its Occidental character—that is to say, its comprehensiveness, its breadth of human interest as opposed to the petty, provincial narrowness and bigotry, the concentrated selfishness of Judaism. Christianity is fundamentally non-Jewish: its earthly origin was among a Gentile people, the Galileans, and the principal means of freeing it from its hostile background was another Gentile people, the Greeks. The Apostolic Council held in Jerusalem to settle the matter, about the year 49 A.D., officially declared the complete independence of Christianity from Judaism."

Jesus is a Gentile: The Evidence from the Gospels

By Award-Winning Author Eli of Kittim

In the New Testament, there are various ways in which Jesus is portrayed as a non-Jew. One of those depictions can be found in the Gospel of Matthew, which tells us right up front that Jesus does not come from the Kingdom of Judah (from the Jews) but rather from the region of Galilee (from the Gentiles; cf. Luke 1:26):

“Galilee of the Gentiles– THE PEOPLE WHO WERE SITTING IN DARKNESS SAW A GREAT LIGHT, AND THOSE WHO WERE SITTING IN THE LAND AND SHADOW OF DEATH, UPON THEM A LIGHT DAWNED.” (Matthew 4:15-16).

The Biblical scholar G.A. Williamson (translator of Eusebius’ The History of the Church: From Christ to Constantine) states that Jews formed only a minute portion of the Galilean population, and they were seldom seen in the province. Williamson also says that “the region was entirely Hellenistic in Sympathy.” He goes on to say that all of these facts are well-known to Christian scholars, yet they insist that “Christ was a Jew”.

According to 1 Kings chapter 9, King Solomon rewarded a Phoenician ally (King Hiram I) with twenty cities in the region of Galilee. So ever since the 10th century BCE, the land of Galilee was settled by foreigners and pagans. Galilee was once part of the Northern Kingdom of Israel. This kingdom fell into obscurity not only because much of its population was deported after the Assyrian invasion of 722 BCE, but also due to eight centuries of acculturation. Accordingly, in New Testament times, it had become the land of the Greco-Roman world (i.e. the land of the Gentiles)! That’s why it was known as “Galilee of the nations” (Isaiah 9:1)! This conclusion is archaeologically supportable. Jonathan L. Reed—professor of New Testament and Christian Origins, and a leading authority on first-century Palestine archeology—writes, “In fact, not a single synagogue from the first century or earlier has been found in Galilee” (Crossan, John Dominic, and Jonathan L. Reed. “Excavating Jesus.” San Francisco: HarperCollins, 2001, p. 25). Since then, only a few synagogues have been excavated in Galilee, with some possibly having been built after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE, discoveries which in and of themselves hardly prove the existence of large Jewish communities in Galilee during the first half of the first century CE. Conversely,  all but two tribes remained in the southern kingdom of Judah—-namely, the tribes of Judah and Benjamin (Ezra 1:5)—-which alone, strictly speaking,  represent the term “Jews.” The term “Jew” (an abbreviation of the term “Judah”) was a geographical term which referred to those who came from the kingdom of Judah. In the New Testament story, however, Jesus is not called Jesus-of-Judah but rather “Jesus of Galilee” (Matthew 26:69)! As we will see, this is an extremely important piece of information!

Throughout the gospels, Christ is constantly at odds with the Jews, and even with Judaism itself—whether it be the Law of Moses, Jewish messianic prophecies, Jewish tradition, custom, culture, beliefs, and the like—that it is not difficult to see that he is not one of them. For example, the under mentioned verse exemplifies that Jesus was certainly not a Jew who studied under rabbis, as tradition holds. In the gospel story, he urges the disciples to completely disassociate themselves from the teachings of the Jews:

“Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.“ (Matthew 16:11).

The Jews were of the opinion that the Messiah would come from Bethlehem, and from the Jews, as we continue to believe today. But they were in for a shock and were quite horrified to learn this was not the case. That’s the reason why John inserts this profound exclamation that comes from one of his characters:

“Nazareth!” exclaimed Nathanael. “Can anything good come from Nazareth?” (John 1:46).

The rift between Jesus and the Jews is once again evoked when Christ forbids the disciples from being called “Rabbi,” the traditional title of a Jewish scholar or teacher, especially one who studies or teaches Jewish law. Instead, he commands them to call him “teacher” (didaskalos)—a Hellenistic title—and not “rabbi”:

“Don’t let anyone call you ‘Rabbi,’ for you have only one teacher.” (Matthew 23:8).

What is worthy of notice is the fact that the gospels often do not present Jesus as a Jew, but rather as a Galilean—(“Jesus of Galilee” Matthew 26:69)—and a Samaritan (John 8:48) at that. In other words, Jesus is portrayed as a Gentile.

In his exhaustive book, “The Birth of the Messiah,” scholar Raymond E. Brown points out that biblical genealogies are important because the ancestors of a family line exemplify character traits or attributes that foreshadow something characteristic or stereotypical about a later figure. A genealogy, after all, is meant to show that someone has the right family credentials and is descended from a unique lineage. Yet, Raymond Brown is not exactly sure why four *foreign women* are mentioned in Matthew’s genealogy, and what their significance is in Matthew’s portrayal of Jesus. The answer is obvious. The 4 *foreign ancestors* of Christ exemplify that he, too, is a foreigner! Moreover, Professor Bart Ehrman asserts that both Matthew and Luke are recording the genealogy of Jesus through Joseph. Accordingly, the epiphany in the gospels that Jesus is not really Joseph’s son drives home the notion that his genealogy is not derived from the Jews (see the analogy between Jesus and Melchizedek in Heb. 7.2-6 in which the former is likened to the latter, “who does not belong to their [Jewish] ancestry,” implying that “the Son of God” is therefore not descended from the Jews either). This allusion becomes evident in another passage in which Jesus refutes the notion that he is the son or the descendent of David (the King of the Jews):

“Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them a question: What do you think about the Messiah? Whose son is he?” They replied, “He is the son of David.” Jesus responded, “Then why does David, speaking under the inspiration of the Spirit, call the Messiah ‘my Lord’? For David said, The LORD said to my Lord, Sit in the place of honor at my right hand until I humble your enemies beneath your feet.’ Since David called the Messiah ‘my Lord,’ how can the Messiah be his son?” No one could answer him. And after that, no one dared to ask him any more questions.” (Matthew 22:41-46).

John’s gospel, in particular, shows that Christ’s teaching is not derived from the Jews, and that his origin or identity even defies the biblical expectations of a Jewish Messiah. For instance, Christ breaks the Law (John 5:16), and consequently the Jews want to kill him. That is why Jesus completely dissociates himself from the Jews by teaching and performing miracles exclusively in Galilee of the Gentiles (John 7:1). In fact, through the dialogues, the gospel suggests the unthinkable. Remember that there are no unnecessary words in the gospels. Every word is important. So, why does the gospel repeatedly emphasize the conflict between Jewish messianic expectations and the fact that Jesus does not meet them? Not only that, but John tells us explicitly that Jesus will not be found among the Jews, but among the Greeks! Jesus tells the Jews,

“’You will search for me but not find me. And you cannot go where I am going.’ The Jews said to one another, ‘Where does this man intend to go that we will not find him? Does he intend to go to the Dispersion among the Greeks and teach the Greeks?’” (John 7:34-35).

This dilemma between a Jewish and a Gentile Messiah is ever-present in John’s gospel. Jesus does not appear to come from the Jews and thus seems to defy scriptural expectations:

“Others said, ‘He is the Messiah.’ Still others asked, ‘How can the Messiah come from Galilee?’ ‘For the Scriptures clearly state that the Messiah will be born of the royal line of David [from Jews], in Bethlehem, the village where King David was born.’ So the crowd was divided about him. Some even wanted him arrested, but no one laid a hand on him.” (John 7:41-44).

In the following verse, we are told that none of the rabbis of Judaism can accept Jesus’ teaching—for his teaching is definitely not Judaic and even appears to contradict scripture. The Jews further imply that Christ’s followers are Gentiles, for they clearly do not know the Law of Moses:

“’No one of the rulers or Pharisees has believed in Him, has he?’ ‘But this crowd which does not know the Law is accursed.” (John 7:48-49).

A few verses later, the Jews go on to say,

“Search the Scriptures and see for yourself–no prophet ever comes from Galilee!“ (John 7:52).

These inclusions in the text by the gospel writer John clearly give us a different perspective on Jesus the Messiah, as far as his origin or identity is concerned. If he were Jewish, the Jews would certainly have accepted him, celebrated him, and honored him as one of their own. We therefore come to realize why they dislike him so intensely and why he offends them throughout the gospel stories. Because he is a Gentile!

Similarly, in Luke 4:23-29 the Jews became enraged because Jesus said that Elijah was sent to the Gentiles, not to the Jews–implying that he himself turns from Jews to Gentiles. John Dominic Crossan writes, “In that case, Jesus’ turn from Jews to Gentiles is cause rather than effect of eventual rejection and lethal attack” (Excavating Jesus,  p. 28).

This theme reminds us of the stories of Joseph and Moses (two messianic stand-ins who are also rejected by their “brothers,” the Jews)—and who are portrayed in the Bible as living and reigning in Egypt (the land of the Gentiles). By analogy, Matthew has Christ supposedly going to Egypt in order to make this connection and to show us that he’s the new Moses:

“OUT OF EGYPT DID I CALL MY SON.” (Matthew 2:15).

Thus, all these messianic figures, including Jesus, are essentially depicted as Gentiles! That’s precisely why Cyrus, a gentile, is called God’s Messiah in Isaiah 45.1! Not to mention that King David himself was not a Jew; he was a Moabite! Similarly, in Isaiah 46:11, God says: I have chosen “a man for My purpose from a far-off land” (cf. Matt. 28:18; 1 Cor. 15:24-25). This motif is also seen in Matthew 21:4-5 and John 12:14-15, which portray Jesus as a Gentile in fulfillment of Zechariah’s (9:9) prophecy. That’s because in Biblical nomenclature, the ox represents Israel, while the ass represents the Gentiles. Thus, the symbolism of the Messiah entering the holy city and riding on a donkey represents Jesus' Gentile ancestry! Paul’s emphasis of this point—which constitutes “the mystery that has been kept hidden for ages and generations, but is now disclosed to the Lord’s people” (Colossians 1:26)—about Christ’s identity bears repeating:

“Therefore I will praise you among the Gentiles; I will sing hymns to your name.” Again, it says, “Rejoice, O Gentiles, with his people.” And again, “Praise the Lord, all you Gentiles, and sing praises to him, all you peoples.” And again, Isaiah says, “The Root of Jesse will spring up, one who will arise to rule over the nations; the Gentiles will hope in him.” (Romans 15:9-12).

The gospel of John makes clear that Jesus’ teaching is a serious threat to the Jews because it completely nullifies Judaism, as well as the Jewish temple—so much so that the Sanhedrin fears that this Gentile (non-Jewish) teaching will cause the entire nation to fall:

“So the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered the council and said, “What are we to do? For this man performs many signs. If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.” (John 11:47-48).

Of further interest is the dichotomy between Jesus and his Jewish audience, one in which there is a clear “I versus you” mentality running throughout the text. Jesus separates himself from the Jews by addressing them as if they were not his own people—“Your” nation, “Your” ancestors, “Your” fathers, “Your” prophets, “Your” Law, etc.—making it abundantly clear that there is a clear distinction between Jesus and the Jews:

1) “Jesus answered them, ‘Is it not written in YOUR Law…?’” (John 10:34, emphasis added).

2) “YOUR own law says that…” (John 8:17, emphasis added)

3) “I know YOU are descendants of Abraham, but you are trying to kill Me because My word is not welcome among you.” (John 8:37, emphasis added).

4) “YOU are doing the works of your own father.“ (John 8:41, emphasis added).

Also notice that while arguing with the Jews—who seek to kill him because they claim he is a Gentile—Jesus does not refute that he is a Gentile, he only refutes the idea that he has a demon:

“The Jews answered him, ‘Are we not right in saying that you are a Samaritan [Gentile] and have a demon?’ Jesus answered, ‘I do not have a demon, but I honor my Father, and you dishonor me.’” (John 8:48-49).

So, in John’s gospel, Jesus is called a ‘Samaritan’—a Greek—and he does not appear to deny it. Further evidence that Jesus is not a Jew can be ascertained from the fact that, in the gospel story, he is not tried in a Jewish court but rather in a Roman—one which was reserved exclusively for Gentiles; that is, for Roman and Greek citizens! Neither was he killed by stoning, which was the traditional custom for killing a Jew. Moreover, some church fathers (e.g. Clement of Alexandria) have claimed that the name “Ιησους” (i.e. Jesus) has a Greek origin, not a Hebrew one. All these clues purvey insights and teachings about a Gentile Messiah who does not conform to our rather facile biblical expectations. In fact, both Jesus and all of his disciples come from Galilee. Ironically, only one of his disciples is a Jew who comes from Judah: the one who betrays him!

Furthermore, the New Testament could not have been written by devout Jews because devout Jews would not have written in Greek. It was forbidden for them to do so. Nor could they have written such articulate, refined Greek. From the earliest times, devout Jews could only read Hebrew. During the Babylonian exile, the Jews wrote in Aramaic. During Hellenistic times, even though the official language was Greek, devout Jews continued to write in Aramaic and could not have written in Greek for fear of being dejected from their sect or congregation! Besides, ever since the overthrow of the Syrian-Greek Empire in the land of Israel, the Jews hated anything to do with the Greeks.

So, who else is left who could have written the New Testament in Greek? Answer: Greeks! And there are more epistles written to Greeks than to any other race. In fact, most of the New Testament books were written in Greece: Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, Titus, the book of Revelation, and possibly others as well! None of the books of the New Testament were ever written in Palestine. Not even the Letter of James. According to scholars, the cultivated Greek language of the Epistle of James could not have possibly been written by a Jerusalem Jew!

It is also important to note that when the NT authors quote from the OT, they often quote from the Septuagint, an early Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, and not from the original Hebrew scriptures per se. This may indicate that the NT authors were not familiar with the Hebrew language. For example, when they quote Jeremiah or refer to Joshua (Acts 7:45; Heb. 4:8) in the NT, they use the Septuagint (the Greek text) as their source (scholarly consensus). This lends plausibility to the argument that the NT authors were not Hebrews but Greeks! And scholars now tell us that these NT authors were writing from different parts of the world, not from Palestine.

And why didn’t the New Testament writers finish God’s story in Hebrew? What better way to persuade Jews that Jesus is the messianic fulfillment of Jewish Scripture than to write it in the Hebrew language, which Jews could both read and understand? But they didn’t! The reason for this is Jesus. Apparently, he is not Jewish; he is Greek! So, the story must be written in Greek to reflect its main character, the God man, Jesus the Christ. Furthermore, if he were Jewish, he would have said I am the Aleph and the Tav. Instead, he uses Greek letters to define the divine “I AM”:

“I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God.” (Revelation 1:8).

The following verse shows that we are on the right track. John the Revelator is not in Greece by accident. He is there BECAUSE (for the reason that) it has everything to do with the SPECIFIC ACCOUNT of Jesus, which is revealed to him by the word of God:

“I, John … was on the island called Patmos [in Greece] BECAUSE of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus.” (Revelation 1:9, emphasis added).

If we sum up our findings, we could say with confidence that the mystery of Jesus’ non-Jewish identity is revealed even in the gospels. And the gospel mystery of Christ’s identity is supported by no less an authority than Paul:

“This message was kept secret for centuries and generations past, but now it has been revealed to God’s people.” (Colossians 1:26).

In his in-depth-Bible-study video called “Breaking the Sound of Silence,” distinguished scholar Brant Pitre agrees that “the mystery which was kept secret for long ages but is now disclosed and through the prophetic writings is made known to all nations” (Rom. 16.25b-26a) is exclusively referring to a *revelation* of Jesus’ *identity* that was previously unknown! That’s why “the mystery which was kept secret for long ages” needed to be revealed. Because we could not have possibly known this truth from any available sources (biblical or otherwise) except by way of divine revelation! There is much more proof in the Bible that Jesus is Greek (and not Jewish). But this evidence cannot be reproduced here, given the limited scope of this article.

.

The Evolution of a Gentile Messiah in the Bible

By Biblical Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓

——-

Jesus rejects the notion that he’s a descendant of David, and of the Jews, in Matthew 22:41-46.

——-

That’s precisely why the gospel writers are especially careful to dissociate him from the southern kingdom of Judah and from the Jews by locating his place of origin in the north, in the land of the Gentiles, a place outside of, and external to, the Jewish Kingdom. Btw, strictly speaking, the word “Jew “ means a person from the kingdom of Judah (Ιουδαίος).

——-

The Figurative Text (Excerpted from Kittim’s book, The Little Book of Revelation, Chapter 5):

In contrast to the “New Perspective on Paul,” which tries to Hebraize the Greek New Testament by giving Paul a Hebrew flavor, Paul himself is adamant that “Jewishness” in the Bible has nothing to do with race or descendancy. Paul gives us an exact definition of what it means to be a “Jew” within the NT context:

“For a person is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is true circumcision something external and physical. Rather, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heart—it is spiritual and not literal. Such a person receives praise not from others but from God” (Rom. 2.28-29).

According to Paul’s stunning definition, the biblical term “Jew” does not denote a race or an apparent physical birthright (as the “New Perspective on Paul” would have us believe), but rather an inner essence or, more precisely, an indwelling spirit pertaining to God. This descriptive terminology certainly illustrates a radical new way of approaching, reading, and interpreting the Bible. William Barclay, a world-renowned New Testament scholar, rightly emphasizes that Paul’s message must have infuriated the Jews:

“To a Jew a passage like this must have come as a shattering experience. He was certain that God regarded him with special favour, simply and solely because of his national descent from Abraham and because he bore the badge of circumcision in his flesh. But Paul introduces an idea to which he will return again and again. JEWISHNESS, he insists, IS NOT A MATTER OF RACE AT ALL; IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CIRCUMCISION. It is a matter of conduct. If that is so, many a so-called Jew who is a pure descendant of Abraham and who bears the mark of circumcision in his body, is no Jew at all; and equally many a GENTILE who never heard of Abraham and who would never dream of being circumcised, IS A JEW IN THE REAL SENSE OF THE TERM. To a Jew this would sound the wildest heresy and leave him angry and aghast.”

(The Letter to the Romans. The Daily Study Bible Series. Rev. ed. [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1975], p. 47, emphasis added).

——-

It’s not at all coincidental that in the plot of the gospels Jesus becomes the figurative “son of Joseph,” who is himself reminiscent of the great hero that once lived and reigned in Egypt (the land of the Gentiles)!

——-

Another Biblical clue concerning a Gentile Messiah (besides Moses the “Egyptian”) is the unique reference to Cyrus, who is explicitly called in the Book of Isaiah God’s “anointed” (i.e. messiah; Isa. 45.1). Cyrus is not a Jew! That’s precisely why God says in Isaiah 46.11 that he will bring from a far country the Messiah who will execute his counsel (cf. Matt. 28.18; 1 Cor. 15.24-25). Not only is the Messiah not Jewish, but the elect themselves are not defined as biological Jews. As Romans 9.8 reminds us, “it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring.”

——-

And why do you suppose Jesus is compared “to the order of Melchizedek” (Heb. 6.20)? What’s the point of the mimesis? Precisely because Melchizedek “does not belong to their [Jewish] ancestry” (Heb. 7.6), and when compared to Jesus, it follows that Jesus himself “does not belong to their ancestry” either! What is the New Testament trying to tell us? Just like Melchizedek, Christ is not a Jew!

——-

That’s why the gospels keep telling us over and over again that the Jews expect a Jewish messiah to arrive from the line of David but are terribly disappointed in seeing a Gentile messiah appearing from Galilee. And, as a consequence, they want to kill him! And, in the end, they do!

——-

Division of People over Jesus in John's Gospel Because He Does Not Come from Bethlehem of the Jews but from Galilee of the Gentiles:

“Others were saying, “Surely the Christ is not going to come from Galilee, is He? Has not the Scripture said that the Christ comes from the descendants of David [Jews], and from Bethlehem, the village where David was?” So a division occurred in the crowd because of Him” (John 7.41-43).

——-

Jesus Christ (Gk. Ἰησοῦς Χριστός; 1 Cor. 3.11) Defies Jewish Messianic Expectations

John 7.52:

“Search, and see that no prophet arises out of Galilee” (cf. Mt. 4.15-16).

——-

Furthermore, it’s the Greek New Testament that introduces Jesus the Messiah, NOT the Hebrew Bible!

——-

And the Greek-New-Testament was not written by Jews but by Greeks! The New Testament was typically written in articulate, refined Greek, not in Hebrew! And it seems that they weren’t fluent In Hebrew because when these NT authors quote from the OT, they predominantly quote from the Septuagint, an early Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, and not from the original Hebrew scriptures per se. This indicates that the NT authors were not familiar with the Hebrew language. In other words, they were NOT Jews. And most of the NT letters are addressed to Greek communities rather than Jewish ones. This Greek-element——running not only through the “thematic structure” but also via the writing, composition, production, place-of-authorship (which is said to be outside of Palestine), distribution, and dissemination of the text (largely to Gentile communities)——speaks volumes about the NT’s theological purpose, authorial intention, and cultural milieu!

——-

Conclusion

Unfortunately, we have failed to notice that the narrative of a •Gentile-messiah• is a major theme that runs across the entire Bible! And, in my opinion, the gospels certainly take advantage of this literary motif by showing through various rhetorical devices that Christ is not a Jew!

——-

When, Where, and By Whom Was Each Book of the New Testament Written?

By Writer Eli Kittim

——-

The New Testament: Book by Book

Matthew.

Place Written: Antioch?

Written in 80-85 CE.

Author: anonymous; traditionally ascribed to Matthew, the tax collector disciple of Jesus. An account of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection that stresses he is the Jewish messiah sent from the Jewish God to the Jewish people in fulfillment of the prophecies of the Jewish Scriptures.

Mark.

Place Written: Rome?

Written in 70 CE.

Author: anonymous; traditionally ascribed to Mark, the personal secretary of the apostle Peter. The earliest record of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection, which portrays him as the messiah no one expected or understood, who was sent to die for the sins of the world and be raised from the dead.

Luke.

Place Written: Antioch.

Written in 80-85 CE.

Author: anonymous; traditionally ascribed to Luke, a traveling companion of Paul. An account of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection that stresses he was the final prophet sent from God, destined to be rejected by his own people so salvation would go to gentiles.

John.

Place Written: Ephesus?

Written in 90-95 CE.

Author: anonymous; traditionally ascribed to Jesus’ disciple John the Son of Zebedee. An account of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection focusing on his identity as a pre-existent divine being sent from above to bring eternal life to all who believe in him.

Acts.

Place Written: Rome.

Written in 85-90 CE.

Author: anonymous: same author as Gospel of Luke. An account of the miraculous spread of the Christian church after Jesus’ resurrection, through the preaching and miracles of the apostles, especially Paul, who took the message to gentiles.

Romans.

Place Written: Corinth.

Written 60-64 CE.

Author: Paul. Written to the Christian church of Rome to explain the essentials of Paul’s gospel message, that only the death of Jesus can bring salvation from sin, for both Jews and gentiles.

1 Corinthians.

Place Written: Macedonia.

Written: mid 50s CE.

Author: Paul. Written to the church in Corinth, in response to numerous problems experienced after Paul’s departure, including divisions in the church, sexual immorality, proper worship, and the reality of the future resurrection.

2 Corinthians.

Place Written: Macedonia.

Written: mid 50s CE.

Author: Paul. Follow-up letter to 1 Corinthians, which attacks “super-apostles” who claim precedence over Paul and explains that followers of Jesus in this age will experience hardship rather than glory.

Galatians.

Place Written: Corinth.

Written: late 50s CE.

Author: Paul. Written with urgency to gentile churches throughout region of Galatia to attack those arguing that gentile Christians must adopt the ways of Judaism, especially circumcision.

Ephesians.

Place Written: Rome.

Written: end of first century.

Author: unknown, in the name of Paul. Letter to church of Ephesus, giving a plea for the unity provided by Christ and the free salvation he provides, to a church experiencing splits between Jewish and gentile factions.

Philippians.

Place Written: Rome/Ephesus?

Written: late 50s CE.

Author: Paul. Joyful letter thanking the church in Philippi for its moral and material support and urging church unity among members who should live for others in imitation of Christ.

Colossians.

Place Written: Rome/Ephesus?

Written: end of first century.

Author: unknown, in the name of Paul. Letter urging Christians in Colossae not to worship spiritual powers other than Christ, who alone provides all that is needed for salvation and spiritual completion.

1 Thessalonians.

Place Written: Corinth.

Written: 49-50 CE.

Author: Paul. Paul’s earliest letter. A joyful recollection of his time with the church, stressing the imminent arrival of Christ from heaven and the salvation he will then bring, even to believers who had already died.

2 Thessalonians.

Place Written: Corinth.

Written: ca 70s CE?

Author: unknown, in the name of Paul. Written in imitation of 1 Thessalonians, an appeal to Christians not to think the return of Christ is immediate. The end is coming, but it will be preceded by clear signs.

1 Timothy.

Place Written: Macedonia.

Written: end of first century.

Author: unknown, in the name of Paul. Allegedly written to Paul’s young follower Timothy, pastor of church in Ephesus, giving instructions about how to organize and run his church.

2 Timothy.

Place Written: Rome.

Written: end of first century.

Author: unknown, in the name of Paul. By the same author as 1 Timothy and Titus, also addressed to Timothy, giving Paul’s final thoughts and instructions as he is preparing soon to die.

Titus.

Place Written: Macedonia?

Written: end of first century.

Author: unknown, in the name of Paul. By the same author as 1 and 2 Timothy. Addressed to Paul’s follower Titus, pastor of church on Cyprus, giving instructions about how to organize and run his church.

Philemon.

Place Written: Rome.

Written: late 50s CE.

Author: Paul. Letter written to a wealthy Christian, Philemon, urging him to receive back and forgive his slave Onesimus, who had absconded with his property and fled to Paul for help.

Hebrews.

Place Written: Rome?

Written: end of first century.

Author: Anonymous; traditionally ascribed to Paul. A plea to readers not to leave the Christian faith for Judaism, since Christ is superior to everything in the Hebrew Bible, which foreshadowed the salvation he would bring.

James.

Place Written: unknown.

Written: end of first century.

Author unknown, in the name of Jesus’ brother James. A moral essay correcting Christians who believed that “faith alone” would save, by stressing the need to do “good works,” since faith without works “is dead.”

1 Peter.

Place Written: Babylon/Rome?

Written: end of first century.

Author unknown: in the name of Jesus’ disciple Peter. A letter encouraging Christians experiencing suffering for their faith, emphasizing that Christ himself suffered, as would all those who strive to be his witnesses in the world.

2 Peter.

Place Written: Rome?

Written: ca. 120 CE.

Author unknown: in the name of Jesus’ disciple Peter. A letter explaining why the “imminent” return of Jesus had not yet happened, assuring its readers that a delay was necessary but all was going according to God’ plan.

1 John.

Place Written: Ephesus?

Written: end of first century.

Author: anonymous; traditionally ascribed to Jesus’ disciple John the Son of Zebedee. An essay written to urge followers of Jesus to be fulling loving to one another and not to be led astray by a separatist faction that suggested Jesus was a phantasmal being and not fully human.

2 John.

Place Written: Ephesus?

Written: end of first century.

Author anonymous; same author as 1 John; traditionally ascribed to Jesus’ disciple John the Son of Zebedee. Brief letter addressing a church leader’s community urging unity in love and the avoidance of false teaching.

3 John.

Place Written: Ephesus?

Written: end of first century.

Author anonymous; same author as 1 John; traditionally ascribed to Jesus’ disciple John the Son of Zebedee. Very brief letter addressing similar issues of 2 John in light of a specific problem, the reception of a visiting church leader who was rejected by some in the congregation.

Jude.

Place Written: Unknown.

Written: end of first century.

Author anonymous; in the name of Jude, the brother of Jesus. Brief and vitriolic letter attacking false teachers who had infiltrated the Christian community, without indicating the nature of their teaching.

Revelation.

Place Written: Patmos Island.

Written 90-95 CE.

Author: an unknown John; traditionally ascribed to Jesus’ disciple, John the Son of Zebedee. A description of mysterious visions of the heavenly realm and the cataclysmic disasters to strike the earth before all God’s enemies are destroyed and a new utopian world arrives for the followers of Christ.

Source credit: Bart D. Ehrman (edited)

——-

Conclusion

Most of the New Testament Books were written in Greece: Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, Titus, the Book of Revelation, and possibly others as well! Astoundingly, not a single New Testament Book was ever written in Palestine by a Jew! Not one! Not even the letters of James and Jude. According to scholars, the cultivated Greek language of these epistles could not have possibly been written by Jerusalem Jews! Besides, according to Bart Ehrman, “most of the apostles were illiterate and could not in fact write. They could not have left an authoritative writing if their soul depended on it.”

What is more, there are more Epistles addressed to Greek communities than any other: 1 & 2 Corinthians, Philippians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians. And most of the New Testament letters are written in Greece. Nine in all! It’s also important to note that when the New Testament authors quote from the Old Testament, they often quote from the Septuagint, an early Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, and not from the Hebrew scriptures per se. It’s true that Greek was the lingua franca. But the lingua franca was only used for commerce, not for writing sacred scripture! If the New Testament was written in Greek because it was the lingua franca, then we would expect most of the Dead Sea Scrolls to be written in Greek. But most of them are in Hebrew, thus disproving the lingua franca hypothesis! Devout Jews preferred Hebrew. Besides, the New Testament was supposed to be a continuation of Jewish scripture! This indicates that the New Testament authors were not familiar with the Hebrew language. This lends plausibility to the argument that the New Testament authors were not Hebrews, but Greeks! For example, it could be argued that the “New Perspective on Paul” needs to be revisited, given Paul’s polemic against the Judaizers, his extraordinary command of the Greek language, his extensive quotations from the Greek rather than from the Hebrew Bible, as well as the puzzling discrepancies regarding his supposed Jewish identity (cf. Rom. 2.28-29; 1 Cor. 9.20)!

To sum up, most of the New Testament Books were composed in Greece. Most of the epistles were penned in Greece and addressed to Greek communities. The New Testament was written exclusively in Greek, outside of Palestine, by non-Jews who used the Greek Septuagint rather than the Hebrew Bible when quoting from the Old Testament. It seems, then, that the New Testament is an entirely sui generis Greek Book, which was largely composed in Greece by Greeks. Thus, the Greek origin of the New Testament speaks volumes about its Hellenistic *messianic* message, ideas, and content!

——-